a decade of destitution: time to make a change

7/27/2019 A decade of destitution: time to make a change

1/28

A decAde o destitution:time to mAke A chAnge

Working in partnership to assist asylum seekers in Greater Manchester


2/28

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the asylum seekers and reugees who

took part in the research; or their willingness to gie their time

and share their experiences. We are ery grateul to all the sta

and olunteers at the agencies who participated in the surey.

Thank you to all the agencies that hae supported the production

o this report. Particular thanks go to Rebecca Ehata or

conducting the one-to-one interiews and writing the case

studies and to Estelle Worthington rom the Regional Asylum

Actiism Project and Dae Smith rom Boaz Trust or contributingto the introduction and background sections o the report.

ia

Coer: Crispin Hughes/British Red Cross

Page 1: Jonathan Banks/British Red Cross


Page 6: Paul Carter (UNP)/British Red Cross

Page 8: British Red Cross



3/28

A decade o destitution: time to make a change 1

contents

contents

2 Foreword

3 Executive summary

4 Background destitution and the Greater Manchester response

8 Case studies

11 About the survey

12 Findings

16 Recommendations

19 Appendix


4/28

2 A decade o destitution: time to make a change

In March 2003, the British Red Cross

and partner agency Mustard Treestarted working with destitute asylum

seekers in Greater Manchester.

The project was the rst o its

kind in the UK. The team helped

15 destitute asylum seekers in

its rst week and by August that

year 85 people were attending.

Unortunately, what was intended to be atemporary solution to a temporary problem

turned out to be the start o a long journey. That

journey has seen many agencies work together,

in challenging circumstances and with ery

limited nances, to support some o the most

ulnerable people in our community. Ten years

since the project started we are in the uneniable

position o marking a decade o destitution

among asylum seekers in Greater Manchester.

Indeed, this month we expect to see the 3,000th

destitute person ask us or help.

This report is the rst attempt to map destitution

among asylum seekers and reugees in Greater

Manchester. It makes depressing reading,

reealing that one in ten people using the

serice has been destitute or more than ten

years, and almost hal hae been destitute or

at least two years.

oRewoRd

This bleak picture is repeated in towns and cities

up and down the UK. As a result, this report isreleant not just to people and organisations in

and around Greater Manchester but across the

whole country. Despite the best eorts o

agencies such as ours, and the commitment

o our dedicated sta and olunteers there is a

humanitarian crisis on our doorstep that we all

need to ace.

Howeer, identiying problems is always the

rst step to soling them. In act, many o the

problems described here could be tackled

relatiely easily. At the end o the report we

propose recommendations that could helppreent destitution tackling the causes rather

than the symptoms. These include changes

at a local and national leel.

I hope you agree with me that ater a decade

o destitution in Greater Manchester we need

to work together to bring about much-needed

change.

n s-y

Head o reugee supportBritish Red Cross


5/28


For ten years the British Red Cross,

Boaz Trust and other agencieshae supported destitute reugees

and asylum seekers in Greater

Manchester through a unique

partnership. This report was written

ater sureying 150 o those people

about their day-to-day lies and

the reasons or their destitution.

t rvy y f :

> Most destitute asylum seekers are at

the end o the asylum process, and

a signicant amount are waiting or

emergency support to begin.

> Almost hal o those waiting or emergency

support in Greater Manchester hae

been destitute or at least two years,

and one in ten people hae been

destitute or more than a decade.

> Serice users are prepared to moe i

destitution occurs. This oten causes

migration to more densely populated areas.

> 40 per cent o serice users who

participated were thought to be at

moderate or high risk, with high leels o

physical and mental health problems.

or ra

We ask local authorities and agenciesto take the ollowing action:

> All Greater Manchester councils should

sign a motion in support o destitute

asylum seekers and reugees.

> The North West Regional Strategic

Migration Partnership (RSMP) should

conene a oluntary sector orum.

> The Association o Greater Manchester

Authorities (AGMA) should hae a lead

on reugee issues who can liaise with

oluntary sector partners to coordinateregion-wide responses to destitution.

> All adult saeguarding boards should

reiew their procedures and duties in

relation to destitute asylum seekers.

> Councils should ollow best practice

guidance rom the NRPF Network on

assessing and supporting people who

hae no recourse to public unds.

w r vr :

> Fix administratie delays relating

to all asylum benets.

> Gie people seeking sanctuary in

the UK end-to-end support.

> Introduce a simplied asylum support system.

> Uphold decision-making quality and

eciency, especially on resh submissions

rom end-o-process asylum seekers.

> Ensure the Home Oce and Department

or Work and Pensions prioritise soling

the structural problems inoled in

the moe-on period and transition

to the mainstream benet system.

eXecutiVe summARY


6/28


BAckgRound destitution

And the gReAteRmAnchesteR Response

sa a y x

Oer the last ten years, successie British

goernments hae passed a range o legislation1

about asylum and immigration. This has caused:

> charges or some reused asylum seekersaccessing secondary healthcare

> the withdrawal o permission to work rom

people who hae been waiting or more than

six months or a decision about their claim2.

The legislation has created an asylum

support system that is complicated, reliant

on large amounts o dicult paperwork

and in many ways inecient, leaing

asylum seekers ulnerable to destitution at

many points throughout the process3.

Poor decision making by the authorities and

asylum seekers limited access to good legaladice means many reach the end o the process

without their protection needs being recognised.

During the last three years more than 25 per cent

o initial decisions to reuse asylum in the UK hae

been oerturned on appeal, pointing to alarming

inconsistencies in the quality o decision making4.

1 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Asylum andImmigration (Treatment o Claimants) Act 2004, Immigration,

Asylum and Nationalit y Act 2006, UK Borde rs Act 2007, Borders,Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009

2 At the End o the Line: Restoring the Integrity o the UK AsylumSystem, Still Human Still Here 2010

3 This is powerully proen by the recent Parliamentary Inquiry intoAsylum Suppor t or Chi ldren and Young People, January 2013

4 A Question o Credibility: Why so many initial asylum decisionsare oerturned on appeal in the UK, Amnesty International andStill Human Still Here, April 2013


7/28


wy a ?

An asylum seekers nancial support and/or

housing entitlement ends 28 days ater their

claim is reused and any appeal rejected. At

this point they hae no recourse to public unds

(NRPF), including welare benets or, in most

cases5, public housing. This includes temporary

accommodation such as homeless shelters.

An asylum seeker whose claims or asylum hae

been reused is expected to return oluntarily to

their country o origin. An asylum claimant who

is unable to return immediately is entitled to a

limited orm o support known as section 46.

To be eligible or this support, the

person must be destitute and:

> taking steps to leae the UK, or

> unable to leae due to a physical impediment

to trael or or medical reasons, or

> hae, in the secretary o states opinion, no

iable route o return currently aailable, or

> hae an outstanding judicial reiew or

other outstanding representations, or

> be in need o support to preent a breach o

their rights, within the meaning o the Human

Rights Act 1998.

Section 4 support entitles someone to

accommodation and a card loaded with 35 a

week that can only be spent in certain shops.Despite this, many people who lose asylum

support do not submit an application or section

4 support because they are earul o what

will happen to them i they return home.

As a result, they all into destitution. Many

nd themseles street homeless or soa

surng, relying on amily, riends and

community members or basic support such

as ood and shelter. Many, though certainly

not all, nd their way to a oluntary sector

agency or aith group to ask or help.It is not only reused asylum seekers who ace

destitution. People who are granted leae

to remain can also nd themseles without

accommodation or any nancial support despite

haing the same rights and entitlements as

British citizens. People granted status are gien

a 28 day grace period beore their asylum

support ends and by the end o this our week

period are expected to nd alternatie housing,

and be accessing mainstream benets.

Many reugees nd themseles haing to rely

on amilies, riends, oluntary sector agencies

and aith groups or help as they ace delays o

weeks and sometimes months or benets to

start. Cutting o support to asylum seekers leaes

them destitute and has social and economic

costs or local communities. These include costs

met by charities and aith groups who support

asylum seekers and increased pressure on

the NHS, as destitute people are more likely to

experience physical and mental health problems.

Destitution can orce asylum seekers to use

surial strategies such as rough sleeping,

begging, illegal working and prostitution, all o

which carry indirect costs or communities.

t r a arLocal authorities ability to help destitute asylum

seekers is impeded by national policies and

immigration law. Howeer, in some circumstances

local authorities hae a statutory duty to support

people who are destitute and hae no recourse

to public unds. This is a source o tension

between local and national goernment.

The National NRPF Network argues the

nancial burden o proiding support to [destitute

asylum seekers] lies disproportionately with

local authorities, who hae little control oer [theasylum] decision making process. The NRPF

suggests local authority serices are eectiely

a saety net or those in limbo7. This tension

is illustrated by the wae o motions against

destitution passed by local councils in recent

months, which adocate an end to a national

policy that orces asylum seekers into destitution.

The circumstances in which a local authority

has a statutory duty to support asylum seekers

with no recourse to public unds are narrowly

dened, and may be disputed by local authorities.Councils are increasingly unlikely to use their

budgets to support ulnerable asylum seekers.

Legislation underpinning the support that may

be aailable to destitute asylum seekers locally

includes the National Assistance Act, 1948. The

act means a reused asylum seeker with a serious

health problem, disability or community care

5 Exceptions are amilies with children and a limited number oasylum seekers who qualiy or some suppor t by meeting narrowcriteria which shows that they are temporarily unable to go homethrough no ault o their own.

6 The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

7 Social Serices Support to People with No Recourse to PublicFunds: A National Picture, NRPF Network, March 2011


8/28


need (within ery clearly dened parameters) may

apply to the local authority or accommodation

and nancial support. People with mental and

physical health problems, disabilities, older

people, pregnant and nursing mothers, and those

suering domestic iolence may also be entitled

to local authority serices under other legislation8.

A local authority can also support amilies

under the Children Act 1989, i the amily

includes a ormer looked ater child or one

who is ound to be a child in need9. In some

circumstances, women with children feeing

domestic iolence who are waiting or a

decision rom the Home Oce on an application

or leae to remain under the domestic

iolence rule are also eligible or support.

Some local authorities hae used their

discretion to interpret this guidance more

liberally, making support and housing more

readily aailable to destitute asylum seekers.

Howeer, the recent transer o north west

Englands asylum accommodation contract

to a new proider means that there is

now less fexibility or willingness to oer

accommodation to asylum seekers on a

temporary basis ollowing an eiction notice.

The transer o the accommodation contract

has had arious knock-on eects in Greater

Manchester. Many o the asylum teams

within local councils hae been reduced or

disbanded10. While their main unction was

to oersee the accommodation and welare

needs o asylum seekers, they also played a

key role in coordinating support and ensuring

statutory serice proiders were working

together to protect the most ulnerable.

8 Such as the National Health Serices Act 1977, Mental Health Act1983 and the National Health Serice and Community Care Act 1990

9 As aboe

10 Manchester City Council continues to take a lead in co-ordinatingthe NRPF network, and the wider North West Strategic MigrationPartnership (RSMP)


9/28


Such coordinated support is ital to ensure

those who are most acutely at risk do not slip

through the net, but the statutory support

aailable locally is limited at best. National

policy change and reorm o the whole

asylum system is the undamental answer.

t r grar mar

The British Red Cross and Manchester

homelessness charity the Mustard Tree

launched the destitution partnership in 2003,

ater implementation o section 55 o the

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

The act had restricted asylum seekers access

to support i their claim or asylum was not

made as soon as reasonably practicable

ater arriing in the UK.

The two organisations were concerned about apotential rise in the number o asylum seekers

without accommodation and nancial support.

This would leae more people sleeping rough,

lacking o basic necessities such as ood, and

asking or help rom oluntary sector agencies

and aith groups.

The partnership was the rst o its kind in the UK.

It later grew to help two other groups o destitute

asylum seekers those whose claims had been

reused but were unable to leae or had not been

remoed rom the UK, and those eligible or

support but denied it by administration errors. Inthe last couple o years, the organisations hae

also begun to encounter and help reugees

entitled to benets but acing the administration

delays described earlier.

Wt w tgt migt b

immdit slti t

tmp pblm d td

it lg-tm pjct.

D Smit, m mg tMstd T d w dict t B Tst

T tst tt I cll ws

g m w d wld

m Wig 18 mils.

D Smit, B Tst

The partnership currently coers Manchester,

Oldham, Bolton, Salord and Traord. Its

members are Rainbow Haen, Oldham Unity,

BRASS, Salord Lie Centre and St Brides. We

estimate 3,000 destitute asylum seekers and

reugees hae been helped by the partnership

oer the last ten years. It has proided ood

parcels, supermarket ouchers, hygiene packs,

trael grants, clothing and emergency temporary

accommodation. Casework support has

included assessments o need, inormation,signposting and adocacy.

In addition to this partnership, many other

oluntary sector agencies and aith groups gie

nancial and casework support to destitute

asylum seekers across Greater Manchester.

Estimates by these agencies suggest 300 to

400 destitute asylum seekers and reugees are

helped each week across Greater Manchester.

The extent o destitution among asylum seekers

and reugees in Greater Manchester is not

collected in goernment statistics.


10/28


cAse studies

GeorGeS STory*

Few people can imagine liing

without any legal means o

supporting yoursel, day in, day out,

or een a ew weeks. Howeer,

such destitution has characterised

Georges lie or more than ouryears. He is not alone acing such

extreme destitution, which can

be ound by those who care to

look in the reugee population o

many o Britains cities. His case is

nonetheless instructie.

A young man now in his 20s, George arried in

Britain rom his West Arican country o origin in

2006. Once he had made his claim or asylum

in Lierpool, he was allocated national asylum

support serice (NASS) housing in Manchester.

When his initial claim or asylum was reused,

seeral months ater he rst applied or asylum,

his legal-aid solicitor quickly lodged an appeal

against the reusal. As a result, George was able

to stay in the same NASS accommodation and

his subsistence support continued. Howeer,

the appeal was rejected, his support was

terminated and he was quickly made to leae

that accommodation. He was homeless and,or more than two years, entirely dependent

upon the willingness o riends to let him stay

and to help him out with basic necessities.

With donations rom these riends, George

eentually managed to scrape together 500

to pay priately or a new solicitor, who lodged

a resh claim or asylum on his behal. At this

point his solicitor also successully reapplied

or accommodation and support or George,

relieing him o his destitution. Although he

couldnt know it at the time, this was the last

concrete help that he was to receie rom

the solicitor, who phoned the day beore his

court hearing to tell George that he would not

be attending the hearing, leaing George to

represent himsel at court. While his English

had improed greatly since his arrial in Britain,

George struggled to coney his case to the

judge. As he himsel pointed out, i you make

a mistakethey will use it against you and atthat moment youre under a lot o pressure

because this is like most o the technical terms

youe not used. Unsurprisingly, this claim or

asylum was also reused, and George was again

required to leae his NASS accommodation,

becoming homeless and wholly dependent on

riends once more. A subsequent submission

made by George himsel was also reused.

In order to keep himsel occupied George had

enrolled at college when he rst arried in

Manchester, but when his NASS support was

stopped he could no longer pay the bus are to

trael there. Ater this, he used to try to ll his

time by going to the library. For some time now,

howeer, he has kept himsel busy by olunteering

at a Manchester homelessness charity which he

rst became aware o when he was directed there

to collect the ood parcels which keep him going.

He also olunteers with a second charity, one

supporting reugees and asylum seekers. George

stresses that he needs to do this oluntary work

just to orget about my worries somehow but it is

eident that he takes his commitment to each

organisation ery seriously.

I m mist...

t will s it gist .

Gg


11/28


George emphasises that he isnt an economic

migrant, and that his reason or coming to

Britain was or protection. Determined to hae

the merits o his case nally recognised, George

made another submission to the Home Oce

in June 2011. The Home Oce wrote to him

acknowledging receipt o that submission, but

since then he has heard nothing rom them.Despite or perhaps because o the

precariousness o his own situation, he eels

that the goernment should either gie people

permission to stay and to work quickly or it

should remoe them. Aboe all, people should

not be let in the kind o limbo which he is

experiencing. In this situation, he says, youre

not liing; youre just suriing. How does he

manage to keep going through such prolonged

stress? I just take eery day as it comes, but

its not easy he explains.

During the periods when he lied in NASS

accommodation George was always earul o

coming home, in case he should nd a letter rom

the Home Oce asking him to leae the house, or

bringing negatie news about his application or

asylum, waiting or him. Nonetheless, Georgeacknowledges the diculties o haing to depend

on the willingness o riends to accommodate and

support him. He is orced to accept treatment

rom them that he wouldnt otherwise tolerate. At

the moment, he explains, Im trying my best to put

up with the person that Im liing with although

this inoles haing to put yoursel down below

your pride, because youre ulnerable.

Why, then does George persist here, instead o

giing up and going back to his country o origin,

as the authorities so clearly wish him to do? He

acknowledges that he cant explain where hisstrength and perseerance come rom, despite

the obious hardship that he is experiencing.

Moreoer, he reuses to sign or the section 4

support which the Home Oce reseres or

destitute reused asylum seekers, and he is araid

o the ate that would await him at home. I came

here to be sae, so why would I sign my own

death back? He adds that while he may be

constantly worrying about money in his current

situation in Britain, oer there youre worrying

about your lie, like i youre going to see the next

day, because its really, really, really terrible.

LInDaS STory*

Destitution is not only an issue or

reused asylum seekers. On the

contrary, it may be experienced by

people at all stages o the asylum

process. This is as true or those

who hae emerged rom the system

haing been gien permission to stay

in the country, as it is or those whose

application has been ully rejected.

The second case study proides a good

illustration o the kind o problems which

can arise at the end o an application or

permission to stay (leae to remain), when it is

not uncommon or indiiduals and amilies to all

through the cracks between mainstream benets

and the segregated asylum support system.

Lindas account illustrates how this happens. She

arried in Britain in 2009 with her baby daughter,

haing fed a iolent and abusie husband in her

country o origin. Her original claim or asylum

was reused, as was her appeal against its

rejection. She was then asked to attend a Home

y t liig;

jst siig.Gg


12/28


Oce meeting at which she was asked to sign

some orms, which later transpired to hae been

orms which gae her consent to comply with

eorts to remoe her rom the country. As Linda

recalled, they said, sign these orms because

we are dealing with your case, which I know that

they are busy with my case and then I couldnt

say no. I signed the document, not knowing thatthat is a document that they are preparing or

me and my kids, my baby to go back home.

On the adice o a riend, she submitted a

resh claim or asylum. Although this was ery

switly reused, Linda then began to look or a

solicitor who could help her to stop the remoal

process. The solicitor demanded a payment

o 800, which she was able to get together

with help rom riends and acquaintances, who

contributed what they could aord towards

the solicitors ee. Throughout this period ouncertainty and reusal, howeer, Linda and her

child continued to be eligible or housing and

subsistence support rom the goernment, which

contrasts starkly with the experience o George,

described aboe. Linda acknowledges that while

the state usually continues to support amilies o

reused asylum seekers which include children

up to the age o eighteen, right up to the time

when they leae the UK, this is not the case or

childless indiiduals or couples, or whom the

legal saeguarding obligations do not apply.

Four years ater making her rst claim or asylum,Linda was nally granted limited leae to remain

in Britain. At this point she had to promptly

leae the NASS accommodation where she

had been staying, and her NASS subsistence

support was terminated. Unortunately, howeer,

the time delay between applying or benets

on receipt o leae to remain and being issued

with those benets was two months in her

case. Linda was lucky in that she was gien

some support by her British partner, with whom

she now has a second daughter, but since he

himsel was unemployed and thereore on arestricted income, he was unable to meet all

the needs o both Linda and the two children.

For many people who nd themseles destitute

at the end o the asylum process with either

a positie or a negatie decision, the network

o people on whom they rely or support is

extremely ragile, and the supporters themseles

struggle nancially. Linda explains that although

she was gien temporary housing ollowing her

grant o leae to remain, the benets took timeto come and while she was waiting or them she

was ortunate to be able to access assistance

rom the British Red Cross to buy milk or her

baby, who was still too young or cows milk.

Luckily I went there and then they helped me,

they were giing me 20 each week which

[made] a ery big dierence to me. Though she

has at last been gien access to benets and

no longer requires the organisations help, she

is grateul or what they did or her. In Lindas

words, at the time I needed help they were

there or me, they did really good or me which Ido appreciate and Im happy with it, and I hope

they will continue helping people because its

not easy, especially when youe got kids.

*Names hae been changed.

I p t will cti

lpig ppl bcs

its t s, spcill

w gt ids.

Lid


13/28


A

This study attempts to map the extentand nature o destitution among asylum

seekers across Greater Manchester. It has

been estimated the area may support more

than 2,000 destitute asylum seekers.

The research aims to nd out which serices

destitute asylum seekers use and inestigate

why indiiduals do or do not access support.

We hope it will help oluntary sector agencies

and aith groups raise awareness o the issue

and assist een more destitute asylum seekers

and reugees in Greater Manchester.

Bar

There hae been a number o national reports

published oer the last ew years, including

Coping with destitution: survival and livelihood

strategies of refused asylum seekers living in the

UK, Oxam (2011)10 and Not gone, but forgotten,

British Red Cross (2010)11. Reports about

destitution in indiidual cities hae also been

written in Birmingham12, Leeds13, and Bradord14.

In 2011, the North West Regional Strategic

Migration Partnership published a study onmigrant destitution in north-west England15

as an initial attempt to map the wider group

o migrants who hae come to the area in the

last ten years. It ound the majority o destitute

migrants were ailed asylum seekers but did not

gie a ull picture o the extent o destitution.

This report is thereore the rst attempt to

map destitution among asylum seekers and

reugees in Greater Manchester. In early 2012,

the Boaz Trust started to explore the possibility

o conducting a Greater Manchester area wide

destitution surey based on the surey in Leeds

in 2009. Signicant preparation work took place

but due to sta changes and other pressures,

the project did not moe to the implementation

stage. In May 2013, the British Red Cross

agreed to take the surey to the next stage.

my

We dened destitute reugees and asylum

seekers as anyone who has claimed or is

in the process o claiming asylum, and is

without any orm o statutory support.

The study included anyone who has recently

arried in the UK to claim asylum and those who

hae reugee status but are destitute because

o delays in receiing benets or problems

nding work. Research was carried out rom 29

July to 23 August 2013. A simple questionnaire

surey was conducted in person with as many

destitute asylum seekers as possible who

access support rom rontline agencies across

Greater Manchester. Responses were lled

in by either the serice user or the support

worker. The study also gae some people thechance to tell their story more ully through

one-to-one interiews. It aimed to coer the

ten boroughs in the Manchester conurbation.

A vv

We identied 24 third-sector, rontline agencies

likely to come into contact with destitute

asylum seekers. This included reugee support

organisations, homelessness charities, legal

serices, health agencies and aith groups.

They were all contacted and ten returned

completed sureys. The ten agencies were:

> ASHA (Manchester)

> Boaz Trust (Manchester)

> BRASS (Bolton)

> British Red Cross (Manchester)

> Cornerstone (Manchester)

> George House Trust (Manchester)

> Oldham Unity (Oldham)

> Rainbow Haen (Manchester)> Salord Lie Centre (Salord)

> St Brides (Traord).

Although most are based in Manchester,

they all work with people rom across

Greater Manchester. Despite being

supportie o the surey, Reugee

Action were unable to participate.

10 http://policy-practice.oxam.org.uk/publications/coping-with-destitution-surial-and-lielihood-strategies-o-reused-asylum-se-121667

11 http://stillhumanstillhere.les.wordpress.com/2009/01/not-gone-but-orgotten-june-2010.pd

12 http://www.restore-uk.org/downs/naldestitutionreportmay05.pd

13 http://www.jrct.org.uk/text.asp?section=000100020003000614 http://stillhumanstillhere.les.wordpress.com/2009/01/no-return-

no-asylum.pd

15 http://www.northwestrsmp.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&iew=article&id=594:rsmp-publishes-migrant-destitution-report&catid=45:latest-documents1&Itemid=63

ABout the suRVeY


14/28


Figure one: the period o destitution

prf r

> 150 participants completed the surey.

> They were aged between 18 and 64 years o

age. 34 per cent were below the age o 30.

> 80 per cent were male. The ast majority

(86 per cent) did not hae any dependents in

the UK, either adults or children.

> They came rom 29 dierent countries. The top

e were Iran (29 per cent), Iraq (17 per cent),

Zimbabwe (11 per cent), Eritrea (6 per cent)

and Aghanistan (5 per cent).

pr

Almost hal o those sureyed had been destituteor at least two years. The most common length

o period o destitution was between two and e

years (41 per cent).

Within this group, 95 per cent are men and oer

hal (53 per cent) are waiting or section 4 support

to begin.

Ra r We asked people the reason or their

destitution16.

The majority o those who knew the reason

or their destitution were at the end o the

asylum process, and made up 87 per cent o

respondents. The most common reason or

destitution was being at the end o the asylum

process and waiting or section 4 support tobegin (46 per cent).

A quarter o participants said they were at the

end o the asylum process and had not applied

or section 4 support. 13 per cent stated they

were being reused section 4 support and only

our per cent o indiiduals were at the start o the

asylum process.

16 The total number o answers across both parts o this questionwas 152, meaning that in two questionnaires, a response wasrecorded in both parts.

indings

1. Up to seen days

2. Oer one week up to 2 weeks

3. Oer two weeks up to 1 month

4. Oer one month up to 3 months

5. Oer three months up to 6 months

6. Oer six months up to one year

7. Oer a year, up to two years

8. Oer two years, up to 5 years

9. Oer 10 years

10. Dont know/dont want to say

14 28 42 56 70

7

0

1

9

11

13

20

62

13

14

0

Number o responses


15/28


I the reason or destitution was not known by

the serice user or the support worker, we asked

where they were in the asylum process. Most

were at the end.

The ast majority o serice users who took

part in this study were at end o the asylum

process. This is perhaps unsurprising as this is

usually when support and accommodation has

been reduced or remoed. Most o those who

knew their reason or destitution (46 per cent)

had applied or section 4 support and were

waiting or a decision. Almost hal the people

waiting or emergency section 4 support had

been destitute or between two and e years.

A small number o people ell into destitution

at earlier stages o the asylum process. O the

150 respondents across the questionnaire, 15

were destitute despite receiing goernment

support during a claim or asylum.

Figure two: answers to I the reason or

destitution is not known by either the service

user or the support worker, please record

whether the service user is

Figure three: where each service user slept the night beore their interview

wr rv r a ?

Most serice users (70 per cent) were able to stay

with riends or amily, but more than a quarter

spent the night in places such as homeless

shelters, charity accommodation, bus stations

or other public buildings. Almost one in 20 slept

outdoors on streets, in parks or in doorways.

Awaiting an asylum decision

End o process

Status unknown

Other

49

3

9

1

1. In preious NASS accommodation

2. With amily or riends

3. Outdoors (such as on street, park, in doorway)

4. Bus station or other public building

5. Homeless shelter

6. Boaz Trust accommodation

7. Accommodation proided by church,mosque or other aith group

8. Other (please speciy)

9. No response

22 44 66 880 110

6

105

6

1

3

11

4

7

3


16/28


la br a ar

Non-destitute users o British Red Cross

reugee serices are spread reasonably

eenly across Greater Manchester, with the

largest proportion (29 per cent) liing in the

city itsel. But the surey suggests destitution

prompts migration towards Manchester,

as 48 per cent o destitute serice users

said they spent the preious night there.

Almost one in e spent time outside Greater

Manchester beore their current period o

destitution. They arried rom major cities

such as London, Glasgow, Lierpool,

Birmingham and Cardi, and also smaller

towns and cities such as Blackburn, Stoke-

on-Trent, Haliax, Hull, and Newport. Most

who arried in the area when they became

destitute went to the city o Manchester.

O the 44 people who lied in Greater

Manchester beore becoming destitute,

only six moed somewhere else in the

area when they became destitute. Salord

was the second most popular place to lie

beore destitution occurred (17 per cent)

and hal o those who lied there moed to

Manchester when they became destitute.

sr rv

Organisations such as ASHA, the British Red

Cross, the Boaz Trust, Reugee Action, Salord

Food Parcels, Oldham Unity, St Brides, Rainbow

Haen, BRASS and the George House Trust hae

helped destitute reugees and asylum seekers

with accommodation, ood parcels, adice,

section 4 applications, and solicitor reerrals.

R a

Support workers were encouraged to

assess the risk acing each serice user they

interiewed. This section was completed

on 129 out o 150 questionnaires.

Just oer 40 per cent were thought to be at

either a moderate or high risk, and oer ten

percent at high risk. This group had high leels

o physical and mental health problems.

Figure our: risk level o service users

beore their interview

1. Low leel risk: receiing some supppor t,

has somewhere to stay

2. Moderate risk: receiing some support, but destitution

is haing an obious eect on their well-being

3. High leel o risk: not support mechanisms, poor health

and personal circumstances, probably sleeping rough

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

77

37

15


17/28


c

30 serice users gae extra comments or details

about their case. Some o these are below.

I m t tid wit p.

Its t m lt. Pls

lp m.

I m witig t lg d

I sd bt

f s. I d lp d

m sppt.

I wld li tpptit t w.

I ws psd t is

tps bs s wm.

I pblms wit

ccmmdti. Ctl

liig wit id bt tigs g. I il t ttd

m ppitmts d t

fcil pblms.

I l slidit wit ppl

i sitti, d l

sd bt m li.

W s mil gt ll tid

s w d m lp d

ml li li bd ls.

T is d t

immigti sstm t

s slm ss

wt sig ild,

it is im d gist

m igts t tw tm t stts.

I m ll stgglig; I

disbilit d smbd

w t l t.

Its ll difclt, I

w t li. y t p sig d d

ccmmdti d.

Im sicidl.


18/28


The ndings rom the surey are

bleak, and many o the people we

interiewed were in a desperate

situation. Howeer there are easy

changes which we beliee could

help sole the problem o destitution

among asylum seekers and

reugees in Greater Manchester.

Some o these changes can be

made at a local leel, and others

by central goernment. Eery one

would improe the lies o hugely

ulnerable people, many o whom

lie in hardship simply because

o administratie ailings. Without

action, hundreds o people in Greater

Manchester and many more

elsewhere in the UK will continue to

ace destitution and danger.

Ater a decade o destitution we

need to tackle the causes, not the

symptoms, o destitution. We beliee

Greater Manchester should lead the

way in tackling this problem.

RecommendAtions


19/28


The reD CroSS, ToGeTher

WITh our ParTnerS InCLuDInG

The Boaz TruST, ParTICuLarLy

reCoMMenD The oLLoWInG:

Ra r a a

All Greater Manchester councils should

sign a motion in support o destitute

asylum seekers and reugees.

> It should include a commitment to write to

the Minister to highlight the damage done

to indiiduals when they are destitute in the

asylum system, and a request or the Home

Oce to continue giing nancial support

and accommodation to eeryone who seeks

asylum. It should also ask the Home Oce

to x administratie ailings in the asylum

system and allow local authorities to helpreused asylum seekers at risk o destitution.

The North West Regional Strategic

Migration Partnership (RSMP) should

convene a voluntary sector orum.

> This could be a contact group to update the

oluntary sector, as key stakeholders, on

the RSMPs actiities and business plans. It

would enable dialogue between the Greater

Manchester boroughs and the oluntary

sector about the issue and local authorities

statutory obligations to destitute reugeesand asylum seekers in Manchester.

Councils should ollow the NRPF

Networks best practice guidance

on assessing and supporting people

with no recourse to public unds.

> This should include, at a minimum, respecting

human rights and ollowing guidance on needs

assessments under Section 21 o the National

Assistance Act, Section 47 o the National

Health Serice and Community Care Act

(NHSCCA) 1990.

All adult saeguarding boards should

review their procedures and duties in

relation to destitute asylum seekers.

> This is especially releant where, as in

Manchester City Councils saeguarding policy,

abuse is dened as a iolation o an indiiduals

human and ciil rights by any other person or

persons. This may be pertinent in the context

o asylum seekers who hae been destitute

or a number o years, who may be in receipt

o some local authority serices and who may

also hae health and housing needs.

The Association o Greater Manchester

Authorities (AGMA) should have a lead

on reugee issues who can liaise with

voluntary sector partners to coordinate

region-wide responses to destitution.

> AGMA should also set up a reugee destitution

und to assist those in greatest need and work

closely to address this issue. It is unacceptable

that almost hal o those waiting or emergency

support in Greater Manchester hae been

destitute or at least two years, and that one

in ten hae been destitute or oer a decade.

In light o this act, all agencies should look toproide een a basic support system or those

people in this position.

Ra r ravr

Fix administrative delays relating

to all asylum benefts.

> Our surey ound the largest group o destitute

reugees and asylum seekers (among those

who know the reason or their situation) were

those waiting or section 4 support to begin.

These serice users hae been destitute an

extremely long time or this support. These

systemic delays are unacceptable and must

be addressed as a priority.

Give people seeking sanctuary in

the UK end-to-end support

> The stark scale o destitution in Greater

Manchester shows the need or an end-to-end

support system that helps people until they

leae the country or are granted some orm o

status.

Introduce a simplifed asylum

support system.

> Section 4 should be abolished and all asylum

seekers bought on to cash support through

Section 95.

> Asylum support should be increased annually

at the same rate as other benets.


20/28


Uphold decision-making quality and

efciency, especially on resh submissions

rom end-o-process asylum seekers.

> The Home Oce must ensure all resh

submissions are decided within the releant

e or two day timerame set out in operational

policy guidance. Fie days should be an

absolute maximum or an assessment

according to the test or resh submissions.

Where representations meet the test or resh

submissions, the Home Oce must make

high-quality decisions about the indiidual

application despite the existence o a lie

section 4 support claim.

Ensure the Home Ofce and Department

or Work and Pensions prioritise solving

the structural problems involved in

the move on period and transition to

the mainstream beneft system.

> 10 per cent o people sureyed were destitute

despite getting goernment support during

their asylum claim. It is striking how many

people were recognised as reugees but did

not hae support because o administration

problems.

> Serice users losing support they are legally

entitled to is a clear injustice. The moe

between asylum support and mainstream

benets oten causes homelessness, and the

moe rom Home Oce housing proidersto new accommodation is particularly

problematic. It is a undamental responsibility

o goernment to improe this transition and

extend the 28 day grace period, ensuring

no-one with status is let destitute.


21/28


AppendiX one: suRVeY

Survey To DeTerMIne The naTure anD exTenT

o DeSTITuTIon aMonGST aSyLuM SeekerS InGreaTer ManCheSTer.


22/28


The British Red Cross, Boaz Trust and other reugee partner

organisations across Greater Manchester will be conducting a

surey o serice users who use our destitution serices rom 29 July

23 August 2013. This will help us get a clearer picture o the extent

o the problem across the ten boroughs, the reasons why people

become destitute and will importantly also help us to adocate orchange. The ndings o this surey will be released as part o a

partnership eent raising awareness o this issue which is scheduled

to take place in Greater Manchester on 18 October 2013.

Completed surveys are to be returned by 27 August 2013 to:

FAO: Joe Parkinson

British Red Cross,

10 Brindley Road,City Park, Cornbrook,

Manchester, M16 9HQ

[email protected]

Name o agency completing surey:

Name o person (sta/olunteer)

completing surey:

Please ask the serice user questions 1 11 only. Question 12 is or the person completing the surey,

based on the inormation you know about the serice user.

Working in partnership to assist asylum seekers in Greater Manchester


23/28


1. First time surveyed?

Using the repeat isit symbol ask the client i

this is the rst time that they hae taken part in

the surey. I no please go to question 1a.

1. Yes

2. No

3. Dont know/not sure

1a. Where surveyed beore

2. Date o birth

Please enter the clients date o birth. dd/mm/yy

2a. Name or initials

Please write the clients name (i willing

to share) or his/her initials

3. Country

Please write in the clients country o origin.

4. Gender

Please indicate the clients gender:

1. Female

2. Male

5. Dependents

Is the client responsible or any people other than

themseles (in the UK)? Please indicate number o:

Number o adults responsible or:

Number o children responsible or:

6. Reason or destitution

Why is the client destitute?

Choose (tick) rom the ollowing:1. Start o process not yet applied

or Section 95 (NASS)

2. Start o process applied and

waiting or Section 95 to begin

3. Denied support under Section 55

4. NASS administratie error support

stopped during asylum process

5. Lost NASS support due to breach

o conditions (e.g. absence, working

illegally, alternatie income)

6. End o process not applied or

Section 4 (unwilling; dont meet criteria;

i age disputed please note this)

7. End o process waiting or

Section 4 support to begin

8. End o process reused Section 4

9. End o process preiously supported

by Social Serices as UASC

10. Positie decision (without housing)

11. Social Serices applied and waiting

or social serices support

12. Adult social care social

serices support remoed

suRVeY Questions


24/28


I the reason or destitution is not known

by either the client or support worker,

please record whether the client is:

13. Awaiting an asylum decision

14. End o process

15. Status unknown

7. Length o period o destitution

How long is it since the client stop receiing

support? (What is their present period

o destitution) Answer one only (tick):

1. Up to seen days

2. Oer one week up to 2 weeks

3. Oer two weeks up to 1 month

4. Oer one month up to 3 months

5. Oer three months up to 6 months

6. Oer six months up to one year

7. Oer a year, up to two years

8. Oer two years, up to 5 years

9. Oer 10 years


8. Where did the client sleep last night?

I the client is willing to gie this

inormation, please note where they sleptlast night (Answer (tick) one only):

1. In preious NASS accommodation

2. With amily or riends

3. Outdoors (e.g. on street, park, in doorway)

4. Bus station or other public building

5. Homeless shelter

6. Boaz Trust accommodation

7. Accommodation proided by church,

mosque or other aith group

8. Other (please speciy)

9. No response

8a. Borough in which client spent last night

Please enter the borough (or area)

where the client spent last night

1. Manchester

2. Salord

3. Traord4. Stockport

5. Tameside

6. Oldham

7. Bury

8. Bolton

9. Rochdale

10. Wigan

11. Outside Greater Manchester(please speciy)


9. Borough o residence prior to destitution

Please enter the borough (or area) where the

client stayed beore this period o destitution.

1. Manchester

2. Salord

3. Traord

4. Stockport

5. Tameside

6. Oldham

7. Bury

8. Bolton

9. Rochdale

10. Wigan

11. Outside Greater Manchester(please speciy)



25/28


10. Other support received in last month

Please ask the client to say what support

they hae receied in the past month and

where rom (can be more than one answer):

British Red Cross

Boaz Trust

Oldham Unity

Rainbow Haen

Reugee Action

ASHA

Salord Food Parcels

St Brides

BRASS

Other charity or community

organisation (please speciy):

Faith group (please speciy):

What type o support hae they receied:

11. Other comments/ detailsHas the client anything else they want

to say about their current situation?

THANK THE SERvICE USER

FOR THEIR TIME.

12. Risk assessment

(This question is to be completed by the

volunteer/caseworkerbased on the

answers gien by the client.)

Based on your contact with the client during

this isit, please assess the leel o risk

caused by their destitution (Tick one only):

1. Low leel o risk: receiing some

support, has somewhere to stay

2. Moderate risk: receiing some

support, but destitution is haing an

obious eect on their well-being

3. High leel o risk: no support

mechanisms, poor health and personal

circumstances, probably sleeping rough

Additional ulnerability, i applicable/known:

a. Detention release

b. Prison release

c. Hospital discharge

d. Pregnant woman

e. Physical health problem

. Mental health need


26/28



27/28


28/28

British Red Cross

Bradbury House10 Brindley Road

City Park

Cornbrook

Manchester

M16 9HQ

Tel: 0161 888 8900

redcross.org.uk

Published 10/2013

The British Red Cross Society, incorporated by RoyalCharter 1908, is a charity registered in England and

Wales (220949) and Scotland (SC037738).

a decade of destitution: time to make a change

Documents